apta_

The dollar printer went crazy in 2020: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2. This definitely had an effect on stock and property prices, and seemingly some cryptocurrencies as well.

Seems there are several affected services https://downdetector.com/

The hypothesis is that its value will stabilize eventually. Many are using it as a store of value to resist government induced inflation.

Exactly. Bitcoin has been heavily criticized on HN by some, but we're seeing its value proposition come to fruition: an asset that is resistant to artificial government fueled inflation. Perhaps also easier to get into than stocks (no need for a brokerage account, and you can buy in almost arbitrary amounts), and definitely easier than getting into property.

I know at least one person who left Google because it became too political, and this was several years ago. It's sad to see what's become of the company.

Exactly. It's basically inflation, just not in day to day commodities (food, groceries, etc.). I think it's the same reason bitcoin price is jumping.

Store of value to protect against inflation is a huge value proposition. Of course, it's still volatile now.

> This is something; just not "money".

It's a store of value. From what I gather, people are using it to protect their money against inflation.

No, it's not about the risk per se. As you point out, investing in a company involves risk, however, there is prospect for generating value that corresponds to said risk.

Shorting (exactly as with gambling) creates risk with the hope of gaining money, without any corresponding value being created. Not only that, shorting exposes three parties to the risk of a stock or asset (the shorter, the original owner, and the new owner). When engaging in regular stock buying and selling, there is exactly a single owner at a given point in time, and the risk is transferred accordingly with only one party being exposed to it at a time. Why is the former dangerous? Because it can easily trigger chaos in the economy when many people are exposed to the risk of an asset, when none of them truly own it (not dissimilar to what happened in 2008, selling debt for debt triggers this sort of chaos as well).

Not to mention that shorters profit off the misery of others (exactly the same as interest bearing loans, another parasitic and immoral practice). Shorters wish for the collapse of the stock price. This is unnatural and destructive.

This is a good article I came across that discusses some problems with shorting: https://practicalislamicfinance.com/2020/02/17/short-selling...

Which air quality monitor did you purchase?

And this is why blindly following regulations, without truly understanding their consequences is dumb. From what I heard, the Trump administration got flak for bailing out of the Paris agreement because they felt that the agreement was similarly dumb.

What motives would they have to reverse it? Don't they claim they're "for the people"?

The market can function perfectly well without short sellers, as it has for thousands of years before shorting was introduced. Shorting is in no way an essential part, and more accurately, it's immoral. Exposing several parties to the price of one asset is bizarre to say the least, and very dangerous. No wonder we keep having one economic crisis after the next.

Short selling is legalized gambling, much like options. Lots of people see both of those activities as immoral.

That's like saying people who engage in whaling are doing it to feed their families. It's hard to believe that there isn't a moral avenue to expose fraud other than resorting to an immoral activity (shorting).

> but there's no inherent moral superiority of one side over the other

Of course there is. Shorting is immoral, it's legalized gambling, and the shorters are hoping the worst for the economy so they can profit off of other people's misery. Regular stock purchasing (not options mind you) is buying into a company, after researching it and understanding its workings with the hope of gaining value.

Another important difference is that regular trading transfers risk from one party to another, the overall risk in the market stays the same. Shorting however, creates risk for the sake of gambling, and exposes at least 3 parties to the stock instead of one. This is dangerous and immoral. It's quite telling that shorting was banned during the 2008 crisis, however, people don't learn and they reallowed it.

What IDE do people use for rust nowadays?

> but I don't see these conversations taking place amongst teachers

Because it doesn't fit the SJW narrative.